Don Hall

Notes on “Critical Condition”

            I have to say Don Hall was the critic in the conversation that I most related to.

He emphasized early on, that being self-aware is one of the most important aspects to a critic.  “Know your own prejudices” is an example he gives. Acknowledging that he has such prejudices is the first step to over-looking them, as much as realizing that “you know nothing” is what drives one to want to learn everything.  Hall also calls the critics he disagrees with “hacks” rather than writers he disagrees with. So with an awareness of prejudice and a knack for name calling, this shows me that he is no stranger to conflict in reviewing. He wants the element of argument out there so long as the reviewer is “at least sharp or precise as what they are slamming”. 

            Conversational reviews are the best kind there are. You feel like the person is talking directly to you and the piece is being praised and criticized back and forth until the best and worst elements are brought out, and the grey areas have relatable justifications. He asks if critics have courage or are stubbornly opinionated. Knowing the witty room full of self-deprecators will take the latter he defends the position that there is nothing wrong with being stubborn. “Passion and Education go hand in hand”.  Arguing over subjectivity can be dismissed as a waste of time when compared to arguing about politics.

            While one should not spend a year debating with a stranger on which of the most recent Goo Goo Dolls albums are the most tolerable, trying to get the other person to wrap their head around the joy that that work of art brings will be far more satisfying to the ideal of “intellectualizing an emotional response”.

            Hall’s input to the conversation is minimal but shows a desire to put up a fight. His question on whether or not critics have courage seems like the kind of ultimatums he would set up for his readers. The ultimatums are a good way to get into an argumentative mode with oneself taking the reader along if there are no opposing voices available. He also puts an emphasis on knowledge, which means the potential conversationalists in his online forum are not just bantering on why one thing “sucks” and another “rocks”. The emphasis on knowledge will hone in on details worth deciphering between the disagreeing parties. Regardless of how many U2 songs I like I still felt stupid during Henry Rollin’s rant on how they have “been milking the same bass-line and guitar riff for 5 albums”. Clever, cutting, and not what I wanted to hear but felt better after hearing it.

            I reference Henry Rollins helping me realize I’ve “been had” by U2 because I also agree with Hall’s comment on it takes courage to criticize the powerful. Everyone I have shown Rollin’s rant on U2 to I made sure, liked U2 to see if they would have the same realization and were just plain offended. I didn’t just enjoy the rant I enjoyed the amount of light Rollins was producing from the inevitable heat he would be willing to take from disapproving U2 lovers. “Know your prejudices” is advice that will serve critics well and it will help one tear down the prejudices of other more easily.